What is new with Koide sum rules?

by arivero
Tags: koide, rules
 PF Gold P: 2,938 I am detaching this to BSM because it is already getting too much parameters in the bag. What has happened this year is that Werner Rodejohann and He Zhang, from the MPI in Heidelberg, proposed that the quark sector did not need to match triplets following weak isospin, and then empirically found that it was possible to build triplets choosing either the massive or the massless quarks. This was preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5525 and it is already published in Physics Letters B. Later, two weeks ago, another researcher from the same institute veifyed the previous assertion and proposed a six quarks generalisation, in http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.0480 Then myself, answering to a question here in PF, checked that there was also a Koide triplet for the quarks of intermediate mass. I have not tried to find a link between this and the whole six quarks generalisation, but I found other interesting thing: that the mass constant AND the phase for the intermediate quarks is three times the one of the charged leptons. This seems to be a reflect of the limit when the mass of electron is zero, jointly with an orthogonality between the triplets of quarks and leptons in this limit: it implies a phase of 15 degrees for leptons and 45 degrees for quarks, so that 45+120+15=280. If besides orthogonality of Koide-Foot vectors we ask for equality of the masses (charm equal to tau, strange equal muon), the mass constant needs to be three too. So, with the premisesTop, Bottom, Charm have a Koide sum rule Strange, Charm, Bottom have a Koide sum rule Electron, Muon, Tau have a Koide sum rule phase and mass of S-C-B are three times the phase and mass of e-mu-tau And the inputelectron=0.510998910 \pm 0.000000013 muon=105.6583668 \pm 0.0000038 The sum rules allow to calculate the following masses.tau=1776.96894(7) MeV strange=92.274758(3) MeV charm=1359.56428(5) MeV bottom=4197.57589(15) MeV top=173.263947(6) GeV (Errors are just from the extreme plus and minus, actually they would be a bit smaller; most probably any fundamental theory for the sum rules should propose greater second order corrections.). Furthermore, the mass unit for leptons is 0.313,856,4 GeV and then for intermediate quarks is 0.941,569 GeV. Very typical QCD masses. Plus, some of the sum rules of the Heidelberg group(s) can be used to give diffrent estimates for up and down. Or it can be tryed from other triplets (eg, Marrni with top-up-down).
P: 759
 Quote by arivero phase and mass of S-C-B are three times the phase and mass of e-mu-tau
I suggest that this is the key, when considered in conjunction with Kartavtsev's generalization of the Koide relations. See equation 10 in his paper, and the paragraph beneath it: The formula works best when all six quarks are included at once, and similarly extending the original Koide relation to include the neutrinos will not reduce its validity, because the neutrino masses are so small. Your analogy between s-c-b and e-mu-tau is a clue to an even tighter mapping between Kartavtsev's formula for the quarks and the corresponding formula for the leptons. (I also suggest that the extra factor of 3 has to do with color - there are three times as many quarks as there are leptons, when color is taken into account - but it may take a while to implement that idea.)
 PF Gold P: 2,938 In GUT, Howard Georgi and Cecilia Jarlskog discovered that it was possible to build mass relationships between the down sector and the leptons where generations could arbitrarily be equal, one third or three times the mass of the other. This was done with a ugly mix of Higgsess, but they conjectured thet the factor 3 was coming really from colour. I am not sure about Kartavtsev formula, but yes it could be possible to explain the perturbation away 15 degrees via some renormalisation running. I think it is mostly an electromagnetic correction, something involving alpha and the quotient of (sum of) lepton and quark masses. But it is just a weak conjecture; it is easy to see QCD involved here, but electromagnetism is a different beast.
 P: 362 What is new with Koide sum rules? Does that mean charge and mass are linked. What about the gravity and strong force in ADS.
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by qsa Does that mean charge and mass are linked. What about the gravity and strong force in ADS.
It is an incentive, indeed. Or just plain KK compact in AdS.
 PF Gold P: 2,938 This is what I think is going on. Before perturbations, there is at least a Koide triplet with a zero mass component and another one that is in the opossite side of Foot cone, so orthogonal to it. That means a phase of 15 degrees (pi/12 radians) for the former and a phase of -45 degrees for the later: $$m_k= M (1 +\sqrt 2 \cos({360k \over 3} +15))^2$$$$n_k= N (1 +\sqrt 2 \cos({360k \over 3} -45-120))^2$$ You can check orthogonality of the Koide-Foot vectors (roots of masses): $$({3+\sqrt 3 \over 2}, 0, {3-\sqrt 3 \over 2})*({1-\sqrt 3 \over 2}, 2, {1+\sqrt 3 \over 2})=0$$ And the point is that the comparison of the mass tuples: $$m=\left( 3 (1+ {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) M, 0 , 3 (1 - {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) M\right)$$$$n=\left( (1 - {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) N, 4N, (1+ {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) N\right)$$ makes very very tempting to set $N=3M$ And so we do. For a basic M of 313.86 MeV, that means $m=(1757,0,126.1)$ and $n=(126.1,3766,1757)$. That should be the lepton masses tau,e,mu and the quark masses s,b,c before applying the small rotation (or perturbation). And finally here comes the second guessing. We notice that also one phase is three times the other, and we guess (based on our previous empirical check ) that it is going to keep so, $\delta_q=3 \delta_l$. With this premise, we have rotated the lepton vector to fit experiment and then copied the phase to the quark sector. Perhaps it is not so; but in this way we have got to proceed with only two experimental inputs to fix all the other masses. Ok, whatever, what we do is 1) input m_e and m_l into Koide sum rule, to get m_tau. me=0.510998910 mmu=105.6583668 mtau=((sqrt(me)+sqrt(mmu))*(2+sqrt(3)*sqrt(1+2*sqrt(me*mmu)/(sqrt(me)+sqrt(mmu))^2)))^2 we get mtau: 1776.968... but this is no news, it is Koide 1981. 2) Use the lepton triplet to get the values of M and delta. m=(me+mmu+mtau)/6 pi=4*a(1) cos=(sqrt(me/m)-1)/sqrt(2) tan=sqrt(1-cos^2)/cos delta=pi+a(tan)-2*pi/3 We get delta about 2/9 (or and m about 313.8 MeV. Again, this is old news. But the mass is very reminiscent of QCD, and the point that in the next formula we multiply by three, getting the order of the proton mass (or neutron, or even approx eta'), is also curious. 3) Multiply these parameters as said, $3M, 3\delta$, and use them to build a quark triplet. mc=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta+4*pi/3))^2 ms=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta+2*pi/3))^2 mb=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta))^2 If you are going to check Koide, remember that with this phase, the value of sqrt(ms) is negative: (sqrt(mb)-sqrt(ms)+sqrt(mc))^2/(mb+ms+mc) 1.50000000000000000002 4) use again Koide sum rule to get the mass of the top. mtop=((sqrt(mc)+sqrt(mb))*(2+sqrt(3)*sqrt(1+2*sqrt(mc*mb)/(sqrt(mc)+sqrt(mb))^2)))^2 5) print your new outputs and check against pdg ms 92.27475468510853794238 mc 1359.56423480142772524333 mb 4197.57575183796073176386 mtop 173263.94170381397040438241
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by mitchell porter Kartavtsev's
Hmm it seems we should call it Goffinet-Kartavtsev. It is also 3.56 in http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/the...d/goffinet.pdf Goffinet was in one of the teams (Brannen was *the* other) trying Koide for neutrinos in the 2005.
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by arivero $$m=\left( 3 (1+ {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) M, 0 , 3 (1 - {\sqrt 3 \over 2}) M\right)$$
By the way, this tuple in its version
$$m_1=0, {m_2 \over m_3}= {(2 - \sqrt 3 ) \over (2+ \sqrt 3) }$$
is also discussed in Rivero-Gsponer 2005, but it is at least as old as 1978, in a paper usually quoted by Koide: http://inspirehep.net/record/130343?ln=es
Quark Masses and Cabibbo Angles.
Haim Harari (Weizmann Inst.), Herve Haut, Jacques Weyers (Louvain U.).
Phys.Lett. B78 (1978) 459
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by arivero 5) print your new outputs and check against pdg ms 92.27475468510853794238 mc 1359.56423480142772524333 mb 4197.57575183796073176386 mtop 173263.94170381397040438241
Hmm, I forget to add, instead of pdf you can also try http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.2163
 P: 759 In my opinion, this s-c-b relation is a big big clue about family symmetries. Consider Koide's latest yukawaon model. It has U(3) x O(3) family symmetries, constructed to preserve the e-mu-tau relation at low energies. It's clearly hard work to make field-theory models with this property, but he's done it. Obviously, if a very similar relation for s-c-b holds, then that should have enormous ramifications for the structure of a yukawaon model. In fact, as Kartavtsev remarks, it's problematic to have just one half of the b-t doublet in the formula - which is why I think the six-particle formula might be fundamental, but perhaps with some secondary, constraining sub-relation that connects s-c-b. Anyway, I think the obvious thing to do is to try to modify the yukawaon model so as to obtain the s-c-b relation. I also think it would make a lot of sense to combine it with the Georgi-Jarlskog relation, which in its original form was also achieved in an SU(5) theory, such as Koide works with in his paper above. Alternatively, one can go the route of Carl Brannen, and just reconstruct the whole of quantum field theory around the clue provided by Koide's formula. But for now I think I will stick with the yukawaon approach.
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by mitchell porter In my opinion, this s-c-b relation is a big big clue about family symmetries.
Indeed. I have done a first surview of the early theories, who aimed to calculate the Cabibbo angle and occasionaly met some mass formula, such as the one from Harari et al. All of them proceed by putting a discrete symmetry but most of them do not use the standard model but the Left-Right symmetric model. They put the symmetry in the R part, then they break this SU(2)_R. It makes sense, as then a up quark is linked not only with a down_L but also with a bottom_R, and then the mass pattern needs some more levels to accommodate everything.

By the way, are we two the only persons reading the thread? It is good to exchange and archive ideas (I am finding now in PF some valuables from six years ago) but it should me nice if other readers have some input, or just a wave and a hello. In order to give other persons an entry point, let me coalesce all the bc -l code in a single cut-paste block:

pi=4*a(1)
me=0.510998910
mmu=105.6583668
mtau=((sqrt(me)+sqrt(mmu))*(2+sqrt(3)*sqrt(1+2*sqrt(me*mmu)/(sqrt(me)+sqrt(mmu))^2)))^2
m=(me+mmu+mtau)/6
cos=(sqrt(me/m)-1)/sqrt(2)
tan=sqrt(1-cos^2)/cos
delta=pi+a(tan)-2*pi/3
mc=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta+4*pi/3))^2
ms=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta+2*pi/3))^2
mb=3*m*(1+sqrt(2)*c(3*delta))^2
mtop=((sqrt(mc)+sqrt(mb))*(2+sqrt(3)*sqrt(1+2*sqrt(mc*mb)/(sqrt(mc)+sqrt(mb))^2)))^2
I'd be glad if someone uploads some equivalent maxima, macsima or symbolic algebra whatever code.

And of course, there is a pending puzzle: to explain the phase of the triplet charm-bottom-top
 PF Gold P: 2,938 The new research in this thread has been reported in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0062 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.7232 Due to the interference of the holding process plus Thanksgiving day, vixra has been substantially faster in this case! Plus, the comments feature in vixra can be useful, if you want to point out missing references, you can do it there.
 P: 759 Wojciech Krolikowski, who (like Koide) found a formula for the charged lepton masses, has now extended it to all six quarks as well, in http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1251. I am still working towards an explanation of Alejandro's formulas (which I consider a massive breakthrough) and feel like I hardly have room in my head for this new paper as well, but I'm sure that feeling will pass...
PF Gold
P: 2,938
 Quote by mitchell porter actual values for dus and usc are highly perturbed away from a "primordial" set of mass values which includes m_u = 0.
Were this to happen for the triplet down-up-strange, we could expect that the perturbation term is,
$$\delta m_a = { m_b m_c \over M}$$
with M fixed, the same for the three equations. Traditionally it was expected to come from instanton, or tunneling between similar states, if you prefer. If seems that lattice QCD has ruled out this term, but it is unclear.

Note that if m_u = 0, only the up quark gets a correction. This was the expected way to solve the "CP problem" (or was it the "strong CP problem"? whatever)

For d,u,s= (5.3, 0.036, 92), all units in MeV, it is more or less the same, and we can set M to 185 MeV to get

$$m_u= 0.036 + { 92 \cdot 5.3 \over M} = 0.036 + { 487.6 \over M} = 2.67 MeV$$
$$m_d= 5.3 + { 0.036 \cdot 92 \over M} = 5.3 + { 3.312 \over M} = 5.32 MeV$$
$$m_s= 92 + { 0.036 \cdot 5.3 \over M} = 92 + { 0.1908 \over M} = 92 MeV$$

but at the price of an extra free parameter M. Not bad, because it is about M=185 MeV, so still expected from QCD, chiral scale, etc... There is a wide range to choose without violating the experimental constraints. But it is still an extra parameter.
 PF Gold P: 670 I have references to most of the recent Koide and quark-lepton complementarity papers in a series of posts here: http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.bl...search?q=koide One is notable for suggesting a nearly massless up quark while being spot on for the other quark masses, which if true, might help explain strong CP invariance: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0112029 and light neutrinos http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0608/0608053v1.pdf There are definitional issues that go into the current operational definition of up quark mass, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0312/0312225v2.pdf which are pertinent to this question. There is a very detailed exploration of Q-L complementarity relations in phenomenology here: http://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/upload/the...d/goffinet.pdf This was first proposed in 1990: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v41/i11/p3502_1 by Foot and Lew. Other citations to related points here: http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.bl...-coupling.html QLC without a parameterization specific formulation was sketched out at http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2371 MINOS seems to be hinting at some corroboration of this hypothesis: http://web.mit.edu/panic11/talks/thu...2011July28.pdf
 PF Gold P: 1,963 A new paper that cites Brennen and Arivero: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...201.2067v1.pdf He finds a natural geometric set up in which he finds all masses, including quarks, but putting all of the 6 together!
Astronomy